Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Food Snobbery


stellabella

Recommended Posts

No he's not, you're just in denial about how the real world works.

Perhaps you should write a self-help book for all the poor lefties. You seem to have the jargon down.

I don't think you need to be a lefty to find Plotinki's beehive heirarchy offensive. However, I am in doubt as to how he classifies himself; Drone, Worker, or Big Fat Queen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LML, please ixnay on the adnay hominemay.

"I've caught you Richardson, stuffing spit-backs in your vile maw. 'Let tomorrow's omelets go empty,' is that your fucking attitude?" -E. B. Farnum

"Behold, I teach you the ubermunch. The ubermunch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the ubermunch shall be the meaning of the earth!" -Fritzy N.

"It's okay to like celery more than yogurt, but it's not okay to think that batter is yogurt."

Serving fine and fresh gratuitous comments since Oct 5 2001, 09:53 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your only recourse is to quoting the majority opinion. By that argument, GWB is 'objectively' the best person for US president.

I'm really befuddled by the fact that because there is a range of acceptable answers to a question, you can't see that the lack of precision isn't a fatal flaw in the equation. The problem isn't that I can't get the formulas on both sides of the equation to balance. It's that you insist on saying that one side of the equation is fixed, i.e., taste is subjective. It's the opposite of that. Taste is objective but the standards change according to the issue and topic. That way the equation always balances. How "good taste" gets measured is dependant on what we are trying to measure. And if we frame the context and the variables correctly, we will always be able to tell right from wrong.

In fact we do this all of the time. If you were listening to a symphony, you would bring a certain set of assumptions with you. But if you were listening to jazz, you would need a different set of assumptions. And if you went to see a jazz show and you brought your classical assumptions with you, expecting it to be good on that basis, it means you don't know anything about jazz. To say that you are entitled to say that jazz isn't good, when you know nothing about it turns the world on its head. That's because there are rules as to what makes something jazz and what makes it classical music. And those rules are the standards that jazz is measured by. And that is the case whether you want to admit that or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suzanne - You have pointed to why some people are worker bees and some are bosses. The bosses have taste to an extent that is sufficient to participate in their field or their market. And the worker bees conform to that image. But if the workers have good enough taste on their own, they can break out of the fold and make their place in the world.

The market measure who has good taste and who doesn't. And like in every other example I raise, the people who are most expert in the market are the ones who drive the market. So Lauren, Chanel and Westwood do not need to have the same sense of taste. That's because while they each work in fashion, there is a seperate market within fashion for each of them. But if you are to define good taste as anyone who is successful in the fashion industry, then yes, all three of them have taste sufficient to operate in fashion.

"The market measure who has good taste and who doesn't." Huh? Oh, wait, you're saying that good taste is measured by money -- how much one "earns" for convincing people that they look marvelous, be it in well-made, well-fitting clothes, in faux-upperclass-twit-sporting outfits, or in an expensive collection of underwear and rags? I repeat: do they all have "good" taste? If you had a daughter, whose clothes would you prefer she wear on her way to the market or her office -- assuming she worked in some field other than fashion? Oh, but she wouldn't be a worker bee, would she now? Not YOUR child.

(sorry, but the whole business of fashion gives me hives.)

Please continue your argument with the architects and conductors. I can't wait to see what you can say.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We now have the comic spectacle of the soi-disant connoisseur arguing that taste is a matter of majority opinion.

I'm sorry to see that you can't argue this on the merits. You should know that to thouands of people who lurk on this site, they all read your last post as the malice of the loser. But I still can't help myself from pointing out the following. How could somebody with as poor a palate as yours tell who is a connoiseur and who isn't?

Yeehah. I love arguing food with them Brits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If such rules exist, where are they found and who makes them?

I made them. But when I had to reformat my drive I lost them. Sorry.

"I've caught you Richardson, stuffing spit-backs in your vile maw. 'Let tomorrow's omelets go empty,' is that your fucking attitude?" -E. B. Farnum

"Behold, I teach you the ubermunch. The ubermunch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the ubermunch shall be the meaning of the earth!" -Fritzy N.

"It's okay to like celery more than yogurt, but it's not okay to think that batter is yogurt."

Serving fine and fresh gratuitous comments since Oct 5 2001, 09:53 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Tis the power of the Plotnicki over thee. Quick, child, hide thine eyes and flee.

"I've caught you Richardson, stuffing spit-backs in your vile maw. 'Let tomorrow's omelets go empty,' is that your fucking attitude?" -E. B. Farnum

"Behold, I teach you the ubermunch. The ubermunch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the ubermunch shall be the meaning of the earth!" -Fritzy N.

"It's okay to like celery more than yogurt, but it's not okay to think that batter is yogurt."

Serving fine and fresh gratuitous comments since Oct 5 2001, 09:53 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zeb A - By the people who know what tastes good. Just like the rules of jazz were made by the people who knew what sounded good. And the rules of fashion were made by the people who knew what looked good. Do you really have another theory about this?

Suzanne - Bear with me for a minute. You keep calling it "the market" as if there is one big market. That's just one way to look at it. There are really mulitple markets that the overall market subsumes. Some markets revolve around money. Like real estate. The nicest homes almost always cost the most money, given that the location is equal. Other markets don't revolve around money. Film criticism is an example of a market that doesn't revolve around money. It revolves around who writes the best criticism. My point, and I keep trying to make it, is that the people who drive each market are those who have a vested interest in the market they function in. And the most talented people (as measured by each market,) have the largest impact. Do you really disagree with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some markets revolve around money. Like real estate. The nicest homes almost always cost the most money, given that the location is equal. ..My point, and I keep trying to make it, is that the people who drive each market are those who have a vested interest in the market they function in. And the most talented people (as measured by each market,) have the largest impact. Do you really disagree with that?

I do disagree. Nicest homes = most money? Terrible example. Depends on what you think is nice. The "lovely" monstronsities being built by Enron execs and movie moguls? I'd take a small, lovingly crafted structure over one of those any day. The same could be true in food - would you prefer expensive ingredients poorly prepared and served in an expensive environment over humble ingredients well handled served on a picnic table? Taste has an overlay of appropriateness and conscious effort - not simply what marketing can sell. Unfortunately, many people believe things are the best because they sell well.

And no, I don't think that if you made a list of the most famous architects that the thing they would have in common is good taste. Most people couldn't name more than ten, good or bad. And the ones most Architects (those most vested) might name as having good taste would probably exclude most that are famous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tsquare - You fall into the same trap as Suzanne. I am not debating what nicest means. To people who want to live with glitzy chandeliers, a home in Miami Beach designed by Louis Lapidus in the 60's is the nicest. And to those who want to live in a classic modern style, a Charles Gwathmy beach house might be more their style. Or I would choose to live in Pierre Charreau's glass house myself (I like the block it's on and I go visit the house all of the time.) But those are three examples of architects who are/were succesful in the genres they worked in. But there were many other architects that worked in those genres who were not successful. Or who had worse taste. Maybe even bad taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! It has taken me the better part of the day (on-and-off, while pretending to work) to get through this thread! It is pretty thick reading, taken in total.

Personally, I like to think that if you apply yourself to learning about something (wine, for example) and taste and think and study, that you will gain some sort of expertise. Your friends might ask you for advice, or be particularly interested in a bottle you bring to a dinner party. They might say you have good taste in wine. (You might even get a job as a sommelier of work in the mine industry, and possibly be viewed as an authority.) I fail to see what is wrong here. I would like to think that the efforts I have made to learn about wine and food, and to expand my palate, have resulted in an improvement in my taste. (They have certainly resulted in a more enjoyable time on the planet.)

I definitely think it makes sense to consult an expert in a field that I don't know too much about before making a decision. I don't see this as undermining my individuality, or bowing mindlessly to a higher authority. If I find that I do not like the advice/experience prescribed by the "authority", I have the sense to reject it. In all the books I have read on wine (very few) the authors seem to repeat endlessly "drink what you like; taste it for yourself; don't rely on the scores". Doesn't seem too snobby to me, and also seems to leave room for individual taste. However, they all describe flawed wines, and poorly balanced wines, and wines that are drunk too young, so there must be some sort of objective standards as to what a good bottle of wine should taste like. (Of course, it should go without saying that someone who hates wine will disagree with their decision to have a nice bottle of something red with their red meat.)

I think that if the general public was encouraged to consume better quality food, less pre-made, frozen, fast, fat-filled garbage, the population would be healthier and happier. (I am talking USA here, as I have no idea how the general populations of other countries eat.) To this end, I have very little problem with Martha or Emeril. I think it is great that you can find fresh herbs and tofu and leeks in the supermarkets of suburban and small town America, and I think Miss Martha and her omnipresence has contributed to that. A young cousin of mine was rescued from a lifetime of fast-food and his mother's bad cooking by Emeril's TV show, and can now make a decent meal for himself. (And given a few years, he may grow to appreciate more sophisticated fare, but the door was opened by Emeril.)

Personally, I do not care for Emeril or his dumb show, but I think he and his ilk have something to contribute to the population at large. If Nigella can inspire someone to make a good meal once in a while, all the better. And in terms of true contributors (Julia, Jacques, Alice Waters, Mark Bittman, various e-gullet posters) , I derive great pleasure from reading, eating, watching and learning.

I don't think it is snobbery to acknowledge that you might be able to learn something from a connoisseur, or to think that the taste level of the general population could be improved.

I am not sure whether it is snobbery to believe in a set of subjective rules that should govern good taste. Wilfred seems to have a wonderfully balanced view on this subject, and the next time I have a few free hours, I will go back and read the previous threads on the topic.

Lastly, I doubt any of us can really ever know if we are food snobs. I suspect that snobbery is in the eye of the beholder, and that most on e-gullet are sufficiently obsessed with food that we have insulted or alienated someone, somewhere... :shock::smile::blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We now have the comic spectacle of the soi-disant connoisseur arguing that taste is a matter of majority opinion.

But I still can't help myself from pointing out the following. How could somebody with as poor a palate as yours tell who is a connoiseur and who isn't?

Look up 'soi-disant'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your only recourse is to quoting the majority opinion. By that argument, GWB is 'objectively' the best person for US president.

I must take exception to the argument that GWB being the president is an example of majority opinion. This man did not win the popular vote. Did not. Did not! Therefore, neither 'objectively' nor otherwise is he the best person for US president. Duh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone who thinks the Royal Albert Memorial isn't ugly be considered to have good taste?

If good taste is subjective, why would good taste be a qualification of people who work in the fashion industry? Or of architects? Or of orchestra condutors? If the standard was merely subjective then anyone could do those jobs. But it's a fact that hardly anyone can do those jobs. Isn't that empirical proof that taste is objective?

Those are really interesting points and I think they only prove the reverse of what you intended to prove. I'm particularly happy that you included the fashion industry here. This is exactly what "taste" is all about--fashion. Good taste and bad taste change with the years. Perhaps the decades in art and architecture and the seasons in the fashion world. There are many hideous painting s that were once considered tasteful and plenty of archtiectural monstrosities that were once fashionably tasteful. It would be possible to say that since they are not currenly admired, time has proven that universally timeless good taste exists. They truth is that many of these things will return and be admired anew in the future. I submit bell bottoms as exhibit "A."

I think others have long ago pointed out that accepted preferences in food tastes, inluding which wine goes with which food, have changed over the years and are likely to change again.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SteveP writes

. . . the rules of jazz were made by the people who knew what sounded good.
The first thing I learned in studying music history is that the "rules" are made up *after the fact* by theorists who attempt to explain what happened. The classic example is so-called "sonata allegro" form, in which two themes are presented in two different key signatures, then developed, then recapitulated. Those are the rules. But modern music historians have gone back to what actually happened and discovered that the only element which was indispensible was the relationship of the contrasting key signatures and the transpositions between them. End of theory -- except that in the meantime, thousands of compositions have been created, slavishly following those rules which never existed in the first place.

You run into the same ex post facto rules in attempting to trace the history of any classic dish not obviously invented by a single chef -- bouillabaisse, cassoulet etc. EGullet has travelled that well-worn route until the path has become a rut. Wagner settled it once and for all in Die Meistersinger -- the comic irrelevance of highly complex and arbitrary rules of composition which are smashed to smithereens when a true genius comes along.

John Whiting, London

Whitings Writings

Top Google/MSN hit for Paris Bistros

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(That's my jaw hitting the parquet).

Plotinki, you are a dangerously insane fascist.

I think I'd enjoy the privilege of buying LML a drink down at the pub. He stands his ground, with a certain sense of style.

Plotnicki's argument is the same old "some are born to follow, some (we) are born to lead," used by every Tory, Republican, Whig, etc. etc. who ever lived: "The people" cannot be trusted to run the government, and, if we're talking about food, they can't even be permitted to trust the evidence of their own senses if they say they want prune juice with their steak. I mean, my God, who does it hurt? I don't remember who it was here, but someone made the comment that the only people who divide the world up into two groups do so in order to put themselves on the favorable side of the fence. Always. The people who DEMAND that there be such a thing as "good taste" are doing so in order that they may feel superior to those who don't "have it," while the people who like milk and steak together continue to do so without permission from Plotnicki. And I think the crux of the situation is that you don't hear the eccentrics acting as if they are SUPERIOR to those whose taste is DIFFERENT from theirs. (I shouldn't say "eccentric," I should say "minority." It's ALWAYS the minority that gets it from the majority, no matter what the subject under discussion, food, politics, art, or whatever.)

Bux: That's it exactly, put with more of a sense of style than I could muster: "good taste" = "fashionable."

The food fascist argument is really: more people think that X is good, so it is, and the minority who disagree are wrong, because we are more numerous than they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film criticism is an example of a market that doesn't revolve around money. It revolves around who writes the best criticism.

And what's considered the best film criticism has changed markedly over even the relatively brief time people have been writing about film (don't kid yourself either, it's still about getting paid). Anytime you appeal to some imagined elite consensus, as if that could be truly obtained, you're confusing contemporary fashion with eternal truth. At best you're describing the current trend.

I write this as someone who is basically sympathetic to the idea that taste isn't completely subjective and that all opinions aren't equal or, more precisely, as equally informed. I believe in The Canon of Great Works. But I also believe that its validity lies in so far as it provides a reference point for discussion. Coming up with a list of great anything should not be self-limiting. Criticism, and what we're practicing here is really food criticism, when well practiced is more than making pronouncements about what is the best. It's the process of analysis and evaluation that spurs people to think about the subject at hand.

Aesthetics is not the same as math or science. What is considered proper today may change. The words used to describe what's proper will change. But dropped objects will always fall to the earth and 2+2 will always equal 4. Saying the top 500 chefs would agree on something is not the same as proving the Pythagorean Theorem or describing the Kreb's cycle. Nor should it be.

Even if there were a critical consensus among the self-described gastronomic elite, it would have no (and should not have) bearing on how most people live their lives. Most people go through life blissfully unaware of how wrong their ways of doing things are. I doubt if any but a few insecure poseurs base all of their movie watching on "Sight and Sound's" (professional film people paid by the market for their opinions) best 100 list.

And neither should anyone be derided for enjoying something you don't. UNLESS they set themselves up as some official arbiter of taste (I think anyone who does that should be derided even if they're right :raz:). And posting a personal preference on a message board is hardly that. There is a huge difference between explaining why you feel a certain wine matches better with a certain dish than does milk and saying that someone who prefers milk deserves to have their opinion pointed out as drivel.

That's the difference between someone with "good taste" and a snob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...